Are men more genial than women ?

Observing history of culture and science leads to some curious facts : geniality seems to be almost an exclusive affair of man : almost all great artist
(such as composers,painters,poets etc...) and great scientists in any domain as well as all great discoveries happen to be man. In addition, have a look at nobelprizes. I am not an antifeminist but the facts are there. Is there a reasonable explanation for those at first sight unreasonable facts?

Observing history of culture and science leads to some curious facts : geniality seems to be almost an exclusive affair of man : almost all great artist
(such as composers,painters,poets etc...) and great scientists in any domain as well as all great discoveries happen to be man. In addition, have a look at nobelprizes. I am not an antifeminist but the facts are there. Is there a reasonable explanation for those at first sight unreasonable facts?

From your cites I would say you intend "geniality" to mean "having genius". One interesting thing about the history of thought is that as society has progressed from pure patriarchism to substantial rights for women, the number of women of high talent has increased too. Take mathematicians; in the middle ages there was one, Hildegard of Bingen. In the renaisance/early modern period there was one, Mara Agnesi. In the nineteenth century there were two: Sophie Germaine and Sonya Kowalevska, plus Ada Lovelace showed talent. In the twentieth century there were about a dozen first rate women mathematicians. You can match this sequence in literature and painting too.

I would say it depends on the individual ... and is not gender dependent.

There may not necessarily be any masculine/feminine traits that are gender dependent. For example, tallness is a masculine trait yet height is not gender dependent.

Astronuc said:

If geniality means

And here it does not. Thread-starter Piercas used it to mean proclivity toward eminent creativity, or proclivity toward genius. The male sex tends to produce more geniuses than the female sex. This has been observed and commented on by Hans Eysenck in his 1995 book Genius and by Steven Goldberg in his respective 1973 book The Inevitability of Patriarchy. Goldgerg's conclusion was that the female sex so far seems virtually incapable of producing geniuses and that this situation is not open to remedy through social engineering.

Staff: Mentor

There may not necessarily be any masculine/feminine traits that are gender dependent. For example, tallness is a masculine trait yet height is not gender dependent.

I'm not sure what you mean - men are, on average, significantly taller than women.

In any case, the reason men have contributed more, historically, is quite simple: women virtually everywhere were actively repressed throughout all of human history and in many cases still are. America is one of the more liberal countries, yet our active repression only started to end in the beginning of this century and the remaining social pressure didn't start to ease until WWII.

The lack of women genuises has obviously a lot to do with their position in society and lack of exposure to learning.

I did once read though that the standard deviation of IQ for women is smaller than that of men, meaning less women geniuses but also less women retards. I think that they have about the same average IQ, and are slightly better at linguistic things and slightly worse at abstract mathematical reasoning in general. Maybe this is due to conditioning though.

Observing history of culture and science leads to some curious facts : geniality seems to be almost an exclusive affair of man : almost all great artist
(such as composers,painters,poets etc...) and great scientists in any domain as well as all great discoveries happen to be man. In addition, have a look at nobelprizes. I am not an antifeminist but the facts are there. Is there a reasonable explanation for those at first sight unreasonable facts?

I think it's like voting, or women in the workplace. Women have the capacity, but the social trends just haven't gotten there yet.

Maybe there is no lack of women geniuses - may be they are just not recognized.

Look at what happened to Lise Meitner. She was entitled to the Nobel prize along with Otto Hahn.

And then look at Marie Curie - winner in Chemistry and Physics.

And there are many more brilliant women in the sciences, but there still seems to be a tendency to favor recognition of the achievements of men over those of women.

As for the "proclivity toward eminent creativity, or proclivity toward genius" (archaic meaning of geniality), I would have to say that also depends a lot on the nuturing and other environmental factors, e.g. nutrition.

Emmy Noether was one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the early 20th century, and SHE WAS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH. But in spite of Hilbert's backing ("the mind has no sex"), she couldn't get on the faculty at Goettingen. She worked as Hilbert's assistant. When she emigrated to the US she could only get a job at a women's college.

I hold both that the distributions of mathematical talent for men and women are different, leading to fewer women than men with the highest degree of talent, AND that patriarchal traditions still linger in our society and prevent girls who do have high talent from growing up to be mathematicians.

Staff: Mentor

selfAdjoint said:

I hold both that the distributions of mathematical talent for men and women are different, leading to fewer women than men with the highest degree of talent, AND that patriarchal traditions still linger in our society and prevent girls who do have high talent from growing up to be mathematicians.

I know that first part got you in some trouble in another thread, so here's how I'd put it (softly): until the patriarchal part is completely rectified, its impossible to know if there are differences in aptitude. Could there be? Certainly.

I know that first part got you in some trouble in another thread, so here's how I'd put it (softly): until the patriarchal part is completely rectified, its impossible to know if there are differences in aptitude. Could there be? Certainly.

Trouble? I call 'em as I see 'em (INTJ characteristic ).

Impossible to know? The g relationships are definite and don't depend on social structure. It's important to remember that g is distributed statistically (bell curve) and the extremes of the curve are what produces the remarkable talents.

Maybe there is no lack of women geniuses - may be they are just not recognized.

This is addressed by Eysenck and Goldberg.

Astronuc said:

As for the "proclivity toward eminent creativity, or proclivity toward genius" (archaic meaning of geniality)

The M-W Unabridged Dictionary list its fourth definition of genial1 as "displaying or marked by genius <new, genial insights — Susanne K. Langer> <however genial his intuitions may be — George Santayana> <we rarely read T to share some genial vision — Herbert Read>". That dictionary makes special note of archaism when it exists, and it makes no mention of archaism for the definition of genial as "displaying or marked by genius".

Astronuc said:

that also depends a lot on the nuturing and other environmental factors, e.g. nutrition.

The recognized historical geniuses cited by Eysenck who had difficult or deprived childhoods might not have been geniuses otherwise? Perhaps. But what about the historical geniuses who did not have the good fortune to have difficult or deprived childhoods?

I meant of course genius instead of genial (I am french speaking) . Does this really have to do with women having been oppressed and not having had access better education troughout the ages. Do we really need education to become genious. I do not think so. Mozart was not genius because of some education. He was born as a genius. Education does not 'create' a genius.
I want women to excuse me : I like them all, even those who are not genius

Observing history of culture and science leads to some curious facts : geniality seems to be almost an exclusive affair of man : almost all great artist
(such as composers,painters,poets etc...) and great scientists in any domain as well as all great discoveries happen to be man. In addition, have a look at nobelprizes. I am not an antifeminist but the facts are there. Is there a reasonable explanation for those at first sight unreasonable facts?

social standards i think, especially many generations ago when women were expected more to be the homemakers and caretakers of family. slowly i believe that is changing.

social standards i think, especially many generations ago when women were expected more to be the homemakers and caretakers of family. slowly i believe that is changing.

There were some women who weren't bound by that custom. Nuns, noblewomen, and girls who had lost their mothers and weren't properly socialised as "women" in that culture. It is signficant that this was the group that produced such mathematical, artistic and scientific genius as womanhood showed before the enlightenment loosened things up aa bit.